<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Microsoft gets serious about security with beta of anti-spyware software ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-06-19T20:01:02-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Old soldiers never die, they just keep using Win98]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1725877]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It's a shame!I'm not against progress, I just like my 98. But those like me seem to have been abandoned and forgotten like an old soldier.Also, I just can't justify the cost for new OS every six months. I am considering Longhorn, but I bet the price will be way overboard. But if I do chose to upgrade, then there'll be another to come along that will cause abandonment for Longhorn, just like Win98. Heck, I'm still using the box I got in 1999; kinda like Soyuz and Space Lab.Us 98ers deserve a memorial, too.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1725877]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[genesis7_2000@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2005 09:26:13 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[MS AntiSpyware Beta]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1718209]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I honestly can't see what all the fuss is about here.This new Beta version from Microsoft is a real HOOT as far as I'm concerned.Have had it from day one and gladly so.I realise that there will always be nay-sayers mongst us but anyone who says this program doesn't work,simply hasn't got it tuned up properly.My copy is programmed to come on everyday at 2pm,takes just short of 30 minutes for complete scan.Since placed on my system,AdAware SE has found Nada,other than a few MRU's which aren't spyware anywho.SpyBot,for my own system,has become irrelevent,finds nothing anymore.(Suppose that's a good thing).On average,daily,the MS beta stops from 2-6 attempts to change settings and full details of the attempt come up as a notice from systray.My only dread at the moment is the downward spiral from the initial 200 days to nada.Will it then become a paid-for program?,sincerely trust not but money seems to be the bottom line with MS.The program also updates itself quite nicely and tells you when that happens with another pop-up from systray.To be fair,the one thing I find a harrassment is the fact that when it is due to start it's daily scan,the Windows Installer comes on the screen and wants me to put my Office Cd in and run it prior to scan.Did so for the first time yesterday to see if it's to be a daily thing or just the once.My normal process was to repeatedly cancel the process until the Installer went away and scan would start.LET'S KEEP IT FREE MICROSOFT!!.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1718209]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[swathingscientist]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2005 08:53:40 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Worked well for me]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1718003]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I also downloaded and installed MS AntiSpyware last week, after running into issues with Ad-Aware.  On 2 different XP systems, after being able to run Ad-Aware once, AA continued to hang on every attempt to run it again--even after uninstalling and reinstalling.  I easily installed then ran MS AS, and it found several dozen more spyware that weren't detected by AA initially.  I think this program will be a great addition to the MS family, once the beta is tweaked and ready for finalization.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1718003]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jslou67]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2005 05:36:48 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Microsoft anti-spyware - not up to scratch!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1717337]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Microsoft anti-spyware - not up to scratch compared with Ad-Aware SE or SpyBot.As the article states the AntiSpyware tools are the only useful feature of this program.When this program changes from Beta will it be a FREE application available from Microsoft?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1717337]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[contactus@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2005 20:06:06 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1710741]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[And how long before we find a buffer or stack overflow vuln in this one?Oh, by the way, the beta expires in July, which means v1 and ALL the vuln associated with it, are released.... hehehe]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1710741]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[doriginalxcaliber]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2005 09:47:47 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Sometimes.....]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1709793]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Usually, the user is unaware that spyware is present, but a minority use their PCs recklessly with little or no regard for company policy.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1709793]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Choppit]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:34:10 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Didn't say MS AS did anything]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1709718]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[MS brought Giant, Giant owns CounterSpy. I have been testing several spy ware programs (mainly for the enterprise) and CounterSpy as with the MS version which only changed in color. When testing or even posting please include keys, files or anything that was caught on one product versus the other product. Ad-aware does find more than any other enterprise package because (from what I can tell) CounterSpy, and SpySweeper arenot looking at recent files, recent registry and in some cases files that should not beremoved. On several systems the Start, Settings, Control Panel and right clicking on Network Neighborhood no longer work. Have to use the Run command!What and how I test will very from you, plain and simple! What I recommend will be (in most cases) different than you. What would be nice instead of complaining about Microsoft wanting to rule the world, what product works and does not work, would be if we post our findings and not duplicate work.Does anyone know of a product that works with other browsers and is cross platform?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1709718]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[David.Cordell@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:52:42 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[another serious problem]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1709711]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[registry hack (local machine and current user), not that hard to correct. Quicktime is the worst.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1709711]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[David.Cordell@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2005 13:37:35 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[My update]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1709524]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[After following through with MS recommended removals.Acrobat wouldn't open, Distiller was screwed up and hanging.  I suppose it removed a file used by Adobe.After a complete Acrobat 6 removal and reinstall I can once again create PDF's, good thing as I am in the middle of a project!Not impresed at all with AS actually, maybe when it is a final release I will test it once again.I still don't like the idea of a company like MS deciding what is spyware and what isn't.  It allows them to render ANYTHING they want as a dangerous progam.  Some freeware or shareware has add-ons that are really not intrusive but it could be deemed as malicious by MS who just dont want people to use free versions of software MS sells.It just seems like it's not their market.Fix your own software but don't tell me what I should or shouldn't have in my notebook.Maybe next time it will actually work as expected.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1709524]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Oz_Media]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:30:10 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[update on my use]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1709510]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I thought I should mention that, since I have it running in the background, Microsoft's AntiSpyware (Beta1) has caught and blocked one attempt to infiltrate my system - that covers five days of 12 hour use online but it was a dialup system which gets a lot less exposure to the net.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1709510]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tech Locksmith]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2005 09:20:48 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[site problems with Firefox]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1709328]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I actually do test things.I had trouble yesterday accessing a Java streaming stock quote and trade site using the latest version of FireFox (1.0). That would tend to support the idea of FireFox blocking problems EXCEPT for two points:1. I experienced even more trouble with IE and2. Firefox worked fine the day before and the day after. I suspect it was some problem on the site that caused the problems.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1709328]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tech Locksmith]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:58:13 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Active-X plugin]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1709327]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I am absolutely not promoting this or vouching for it's security, but there are Active-X plugins.e.g. http://www.iol.ie/~locka/mozilla/plugin.htm]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1709327]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tech Locksmith]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:53:07 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[deus ex machina]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1709325]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Right on all points, In my reply post I forgot to mention that I don't even open e-mail in HTML yet when I run IE for a few weeks I have as many as 90 spyware/adware items that have to be flushed out.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1709325]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tech Locksmith]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:44:35 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[not the user]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1709323]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I understand your theory, but in my testing I only visit the highly professional sites I normally access, including Google, TR, and two really major brokerage sites (I day trade).I can run everything with no problem using FireFox, no restrictions, and spyware/adware scans remain clean but opening IE even for a minute plants a minimum of 4 adware programs on my system.FireFox's adware blocking has nothing to do with preventing me from visiting sites - it just blocks the adware.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1709323]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Tech Locksmith]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2005 04:41:43 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[My test today]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1709119]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I found a spyware infected PC today so I did a little test.  I ran Microsoft's Anti-spyware first.  It found some stuff.  Then I ran Spybot S&amp;D and it found a lot more stuff.  Then I logged off and back on and Microsoft found a program trying to re-install itself.  MS and Spybot failed to properly remove it. Ad-Aware put an end to that.  Other than the resident part I don't see anything MS can do that Spybot and Adaware couldn't.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1709119]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Roger99a]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2005 16:03:18 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Another comparisson of test results]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1708915]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Some notes form the various install modules.&quot;Auto UpdaterWhen you enable AutoUpdater, it checks for an Internet connection every five minutes until a connection is found, and every four hours thereafter.Microsoft AntiSpyware comes installed with over 100 real-time active Security Agents. Security Agents help to stop most threats before they can be installed and help protect your privacy and identity as well as helping prevent any unauthorized programs from taking control of your computer.These agents work much like security checkpoints in your computer, monitoring system, application, and Internet changes and activity for anything potentially hazardous.SYSTEM AGENTS:System Agents monitor a number of checkpoints for potential threats making unauthorized or hazardous changes to your computer, such as altering your security permissions or system settings.SpyNet is a network community that connects Microsoft AntiSpyware users together to identify and share information about unknown spyware applications and signatures. &quot;In other words, we want to install a bunch of auto updating and monitoring software too.  Which in our case, we don't deem spyware.  Although it is a background monitoring and updating process, we deem this okay because it is made by the trusted MS corporation.SCAN RESULTS:Spyware threats detected: 11Memory PRocess scanned: 1209Memory Processes Infected: 0Files scanned: 22908Spyware files infected: 85Registry Keys scanned: 8679Registry Keys Infected: 245Total scan time: 12 mins 50 secs.Out of the 11 threats detected:5 are known and not really threats, as noted by the MS results also, removal was not recommended by AS. 2 are part of a program I use and are also Listed as low level and removal is not necessary.NOW to Run AdAware, without allowing Microsoft AS to clean what it has found.AdAware boots and NOW checks for update, update found and downloaded in seconds.37 Running Processes117 Process Modules10 Objects recognized0 Ignored10 New Critical Objects1 Registry Value identified8 files identified1 folderidentifiedLooking through the list shows Data miner cookies low threatregistry value added by known and accepted websiteone file associated with a program I run once in a whileTotal scan time: 9 minutes 36 seconds.SO I cleared the entires with Adaware and rescanned with MS AS.This time MS returns 7 entries.3 suggested as igrnore2 Remove2 quarantineNote:  2 suggested for removal are a result of a program used not too often and they don't run continuously.  Simple banner ads in an interface.It then said that it wanted to change my default browser to IE so it can offer browser protection.  NO thanks.AdAware seems to be finding the same things, it has also been told to ignore certain entries already as I've been using it for a while.I think MS wants to run too much in the background, as always they are intrusive.  Doesn't really fo anything AdAware didn't.I'll stick with AdAware, I'd run both but again who needs the extra processes and update checks all the time?  That's mainly what I am trying to reduce by running adaware to begin with.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1708915]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Oz_Media]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:44:10 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Coding]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1708820]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Don't blame me for coding it.  Our guys code in PHP.  Microsoft writes code like there is no evil in the world.  Our 3rd party software provider codes like Microsoft.  Beware of apps that require IE.You'll probably like this, too:  it still requires MS Java/Virtual Machine.  It won't work with Sun Java.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1708820]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Roger99a]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:12:13 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[To be or not to be...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1708789]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...Installed and used over a longer period of time?I have been testing the AntiSpyware now for over a week on machines that have Ad-Aware and Spybot installed and run on a regular basis.Two of these machines are running XP non-service pack 2, which means the extra functionality of blocking Objects in IE are not there.  The tools provided in the AntiSpyware worked well to patch these &quot;holes&quot;, however, we must remember where this software came from.The AnitSpyware was not a utility drummed up at the Redmond campus, it is infact from Giant Software, which Microsoft acquired in December.  This goes to show that Microsoft, again, took a known good product, slapped a facelift on it and repackaged it.Now I am not totally against this practice of Microsoft's, in fact I appreciate their additions to software.  It is only problematic when they repackage without noticeable additions.  Take for instance Visio.  Visio was a good product in and of itself, then Microsoft bought them up and repackaged and released Visio 2000.  There was no real benefit to the software as added by Microsoft.  However, with a little time and added code, voila, we get get Visio 2002.  This was in fact a MICROSOFT product.So all this to say, give Microsoft a little time.  It was nice of them to tip their hand and show us this beta, but remember, it is just a beta, and they are still adding their final touches.And as a final word, after a week so far of evaluating, the other products do not even compare to the protection I have with AntiSpyware and it's automatic updates.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1708789]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[jeremyedmiston@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2005 08:30:31 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Standards vs. The M$ Way]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1708762]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You might want to &quot;pled the 5th&quot; on that one.Where to start...&quot;lack of support for ActiveX, VBscript and BHO's smells of a lack of functionanality&quot;, nope its referred to as supporting W3C (aka web) standards.  None of the above are web standards; remember market share does not a standard make. FireFox does support JavaScript, Java, and FireFox extensions; the first two are? let me check? YEP they?re web standards (and the third replaces BHO?s).&quot;Microsoft has always strived to make it's software as useful as possible and others have strived to take advantage of this usefulness for personal gain&quot; you a marketing guys best fried aren?t you.  What M$ doesn?t put in their propaganda is that they do all the above at the cost of security.  If they made cars... there would be no door locks and push button ignition, to make driving &quot;useful&quot;.&quot;Where I work we have a web based app that requires IE6 because of this functionality.&quot; If you code to web standards (consult W3C) and this would not be a problem... period point blank. Thank you drive through !&quot;This app is also detected by almost every anti-spyware app as spyware.&quot; Oh the irony, you must be &quot;leveraging&quot; a feature of IE that most spyware companies consider &quot;unsafe&quot;. Once again, coding to web standards would most likely prevent this issue.&quot;I have tested MS's new product and it seems to work well, finding things after Ad-aware and Spybot...&quot; and you would expect anything less? Returning to the car analogy, Ford makes the best tools for diagnosing problems in Ford cars.  Sure 3rd parties can diagnose problems too, but they will always lack that insider information.&quot;TechRepublic has yet to infect my machine, but FreeGreetingCardsAndScreensaversAndStuff.com probably would.&quot; We finally agree on something! Consider for a moment what might happen if a bad guy were to hack a company the serves banner ads on TechRepublic (like http://ads.com.com/*), then using the DRM vulnerability in Windows, downloads spyware on your PC... and all you did was visit TechRepublic.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1708762]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[red_wolf@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:51:07 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Was this directed at me?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1708729]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Spoken like a true Micro$oftie... Do you have any factual basis for the statement &quot;FireFox is not for them as they will be limited in where they can go and will get frustrated very easily&quot;?Have you actually tried to run FireFox? My I suggest you spend an entire day running FireFox v1.0 and then tell me what sites it was &quot;limited&quot; on and how it &quot;frustrated&quot; you.  And don't bother saying Windowsupdate.com (no alternative browser supports that site).I find it highly unlike that FireFox (without deep OS integration) will ever suffer as bad as IE in the spyware department.  It is simply too easy to execute remote code (with or without user intervention) in IE.  Micro$oft will tell you IE can't be removed from Windows or the OS won't run. Deep integration = easy exploitation.As far as users go... my mother-in-law loves FireFox.  After the third visit to her house to clean spyware and adware (courtesy of my little cousins), I installed it, set it as the default browser and removed all shortcuts for IE.  I haven?t been back since, she is not &quot;frustrated&quot;, nor has she been limited in where she goes, in fact she raves about FireFox (adding adblock and ForcastFox.. and FireFox ?sells? itself).In closing there have been 6 vulnerabilities found in FireFox, and in your beloved IE that number is 76. Microsoft (a multi-billion dollar company) offers researcher NOTHING to find holes in IE (a good thing because it would cut into their profit margin), on the other hand Mozilla (makers of FireFox and a non-profit company supported by donations) offers $500 dollars to anyone that can find a new vulnerability. Now tell me... who puts their money where their mouth is?If exploiting FireFox was so easy then the spyware makers could make easy money submitting vulnerabilities.If you need links supporting any of the above let me know.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/11-167078-1708729]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[red_wolf@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2005 07:29:30 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

